From: Pietro Pugni <pietro.pugni@gmail.com>
To: Wei Shan <weishan.ang@gmail.com>
Cc: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Can't get Dell PE T420 (Perc H710) perform better than a MacMini with PostgreSQL
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 12:51:33 +0200
Message-ID: <F3A49DF3-A91B-4980-99AA-8381882B0C94@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFe9ZTqB-qgVvXUT9bfEcasaPwdM2UpmubxMpngEEZ17OUsONQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <732B95A3-FEC8-4623-9AC5-98FD30F00863@gmail.com>
<CAC_2qU-0bchgXxKtOk9jkp9ywU2+30rTEcTCYUw00gLZ9MhC0w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFe9ZTqB-qgVvXUT9bfEcasaPwdM2UpmubxMpngEEZ17OUsONQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
Hi Wei Shan,
Thank you for your response.
Query B was run after initializing the DB ex-novo doing VACUUM ANALYZE before and after creating and clustering indexes.
By the way, these results are consistent through time and are reproducible, so it’s not a metter of statistic collector (I guess).
Your observation is the same done at dba.stackexchange.com and this make me think that the built-in Postgres of OS X Server is truly optimized.
Best regards,
Pietro
PS on the other response I reported both postgresql.conf
Il giorno 01/apr/2015, alle ore 16:44, Wei Shan <weishan.ang@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Just looking at the 2 B_2 queries, I'm curious as to why is the execution plan different between the 2 machines. Is the optimiser stats updated on both databases?
>
> Regards,
> Wei Shan
>
> On 1 April 2015 at 22:32, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Pietro Pugni <pietro.pugni@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now let’s propose some query profiling times.
>
> B type set are transactions, so it's impossible for me to post EXPLAIN ANALYZE results. I've extracted two querys from a single transactions and executed the twos on both system. Here are the results:
>
> T420
>
> Query B_1 [55999.649 ms + 0.639 ms] http://explain.depesz.com/s/LbM
>
> Query B_2 [95664.832 ms + 0.523 ms] http://explain.depesz.com/s/v06
>
> MacMini
>
> Query B_1 [56315.614 ms] http://explain.depesz.com/s/uZTx
>
> Query B_2 [44890.813 ms] http://explain.depesz.com/s/y7Dk
>
>
> Looking at the 2 B_2 queries (since they are so drastically different), the in-memory quicksorts stand out on the Dell as being *drastically* slower than the disk-based sorts on your mac-mini....
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ang Wei Shan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pietro.pugni@gmail.com, weishan.ang@gmail.com, aidan@highrise.ca
Subject: Re: Can't get Dell PE T420 (Perc H710) perform better than a MacMini with PostgreSQL
In-Reply-To: <F3A49DF3-A91B-4980-99AA-8381882B0C94@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox